2008 (7) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed by M/s. Om Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal 60/2004-C.E., dt. 17-3-04 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority. The original authority sanctioned refund of an amount of Rs. 7,49,932/- and credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o its customer and the refund of the impugned amount would involve unjust enrichment of the assessee. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of the Tribunal in ONGC v. CCE [2003 (158) E.L.T. 829 (Tri.-Del.)] in support of his claim that the assessee was eligible for refund claimed. 3. Ld. SDR relies on the decision of the Larger Bench decision in S. Kumar's case (supr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relied on by the lower authorities dealt with the post-clearance adjustments of the central excise duty involved. The ratio of the said decisions do not apply to the instant case. As the amount originally collected was returned, there would be no unjust enrichment in sanctioning the impugned refund amount to the assessee. In the ONGC case (supra) cited by the appellants, ONGC had initially paid h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X